HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-09 City Council (15)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
C ty anager Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS12
DATE:AUGUST 9, 1999 CMR:341:99
SUBJECT:DIRECTION ON DESIGN APPEARANCE AND MASSINGFOR
PARKING STRUCTURES; APPROVAL OF BUILDOUT OFLOT
S/L FOR A TEEN CENTER AND OFFICE SPACE;AND
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE INTHE
AMOUNT OF $70,000 FOR DOWNTOWN PARI~NG STRUCTURE
FEASIBILITY STUDYCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
19530
REPORT IN BRIEF
On July 7, 1997, Council approved proceeding xvith steps that will potentially lead to the
construction of up to two multi-level parking structures in the downtown area. The taro
potential sites are Lots S and L (Bryant/Lytton/Florence) and Lot R (south of University
Avenue, between High/Alma south).
An application for Planned Community Zoning, Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR), Tentative Subdivision Map, and design concepts have been presented to the
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB). The DEIR has been
revised by the Planning Commission and ARB, and the Final EIR will be presented to
Council, along with the PC zoning and Tentative Subdivision Map, in the Fall. The
Planning Commission supported the ARB’s belief that the structures are too large for
their sites and voted to deny the project as currently envisioned. Both the Planning
Commission and the ARB have recommended that each garage be reduced by one above-
pound floor, if possible. In addition to height issues, the ARB recommended that the
garages look less like buildings, and have a more open "parking structure" appearance.
The Planning Commission felt that the parking structures should not be the largest
buildings downtoxvn and should fit into the streetscape as background buildings.
In addition to exterior design and massing issues, staff is requesting direction on the use
of surplus, non-parking space at the comer of Bryant/Lytton. This area could be used for
an office, Teen Center or retail space or some combination of these. The DEIR allows for
construction of up to three floors at approximately 4,500 square feet per floor. Staff is
recommending two floors (for a total of 9,000 square feet) with office and Teen Center
CMR:341:99 Page 1 of 21
use instead of retail, since retail use would attract more vehicles and only minimally
offset the benefit of constructing the garage.
Staff is requesting approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $70,000, which
would reimburse the design budget for preparation of the Tentative Subdivision Map and
DEIR, and for subsurface investigation and design related to the garage foundation at the
Lot R site.
CMR:341:99 Page 2 of 21
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
o
o
o
o
Direct staff to proceed with the design of Lot SiL as presented in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This would consist of a "building style"
exterior, with seven levels (two levels below-grade, one level at-grade and four
parking levels above-grade).
Direct staff to proceed with the design of Lot R as presented in the EIR. This
would consist of a "building style" exterior with five levels (no levels below-
grade, one level at-grade and four parking levels above-grade).
Approve proceeding with the design of two floors for office and Teen Center use
in the non-parking area adjoining the garage at the corner of Bryant/Lytton
Avenues. The property would be paid for by the City General Fund, and lease
proceeds from a long-term office rental would be used to offset the construction
cost of the Teen Center portion of the building.
Approve the concept of providing areas for potential Automatic Public Toilets
(APTs) at each garage. Staff will re-assess the need for two additional APTs at the
garage locations prior to construction of the garages.
Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $70,000 for
additional design-related services (Attachment A). Attachment B summarizes the
BAOs approved to date in 1999-00.
Approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract
change order authority with Watry Design Group for contract C6076145 from
$34;100 to $119,100. This increase is for design and legal services related to
additional foundation investigations at Lot R, for surveying and title reports
needed for the preparation of Tentative Subdivision maps at both sites, and for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This work would be funded by
means of the BAO plus a contract change order to deduct $15,000 from contract
C 8103688 with Turner Construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On Januar?° 12, 1998, Council approved proceeding with the design of two multi-level
parking structures in the downtown area (CMR:109:98). The two structures would be
located at Lot R (south of Universit?~ Avenue, between High/Alma Streets) and Lots S
and L (Bryant!%ytton). The two garages would provide a total of approximately 700 new
parking spaces to offset the existing downtown parking deficit of 1,500 spaces. Pursuant
to Council direction, the design was funded to the 50 percent completion stage, at which
CMR:341:99 Page 3 of 21
time it will be presented to Council for approval. Upon Council approval of the 50
percent documents, proceedings to form an assessment district will be held. If an
assessment district is approved by a majority of downtown property owners, the design
will be completed and the project advertised for construction bids.
The building design that has been followed by staff is based upon preliminary design
concepts that had been presented to the ARB,. Planning Commission and Council
("Scheme A") in 1996. Plans showing the current proposed configuration of the garages
are shown in Attachment C, and meeting minutes from the public reviews are given in
Attachment D.
A summa~" of the components of the application submitted is as follows:
Parking Structure Design: The parking garages include the number of levels and
spaces as outlined below:
Existing Added Total
Spaces Spaces Spaces
Lot R (High!Alma)71 156 227
Lot S/L (Bryant!Lytton)109 537 646
Total:180 693 873
Levels Levels
Below At & Above
Grade Grade
0 5
2 5
The height of Lot S/L would be 48 feet to the top of the railing on the fifth level and 64
feet to the top of the elevator. The top level would not be covered. The total floor area is
206,300 square feet. Primary vehicular access is proposed from a tw0-way driveway on
Florence and Bryant. Pedestrian access would be accommodated with a stairway near the
Florence Street side and a stairway and two elevators located near Bryant Street. A third
stairway would be added near the potential leased area at Bryant/Lytton. Other amenities
included in the project consist of: a landscaped plaza located on the Bryant Street side of
the structure; a light well in the center of the structure to provide light and air circulation;
bicycle lockers and racks; and electric vehicle hookups/recharging stations.
The Lot R structure would be 48 feet to the top of the railing on the fifth level and 58 feet
to the top of the elevator. The top level would not be covered. The total floor area would
be 97,700 square feet. Primary vehicular access is proposed from a two-way driveway on
Alma and High Streets. Pedestrian access would be accommodated with a stairway and
elevator near the High Street side and a stairway near Alma Street. Other amenities
included in the project consist of: a pedestrian walkway between Alma and High Streets;
a 5,200 square foot landscaped plaza at the north side of the lot; bicycle lockers and
racks; and electric vehicle hookups!recharging stations.
CMR:341:99 Page 4 of 21
Permit Parking: The majority of the new spaces in both garages would be used for
employee permit parking only (these spaces would become available to the general
public before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m.). On the existing surface parking lots there are a
total of 144 parking spaces available for use by the general public (35 on Lot R, 109
on Lot S/L). This same approximate level of public, non-permit spaces could be
provided for in the new garages. The ground floor levels of the proposed structures
would provide a total of 130 spaces (41 on Lot R, 89 on Lot S/L). Additional general
public spaces could be made available on other floors, depending upon the layout of
the final floorplan, the feasibility and type of parking enforcement, etc. Staff will
return with more information on the use of parking permits as the design progresses.
In the future, staff will be presenting recommendations for a downtown residential
parking permit program for the downtown area. It is anticipated that the timing for
implementing any parking permit program would be coordinated with the construction
of any new downtown parking garages. This would help ensure that any downtown
employees displaced by a residential parking permit program will have a garage in
which to park, and not simply relocate into other neighborhoods.
Public Art: A budget for public art has been established for each of the structures, at
approximately 1 percent of the construction cost. The services of an artist were not
secured at the beginning of the project so that the limited project funding could be
focused on the design and other items with high construction cost implications. An
informational presentation was made to the Public Art Commission (PAC) in
September 1998, and if an assessment district is approved, staff will work with the
PAC to secure the services of an artist(s). A representative from the PAC is a member
of the Parking Study Group. The artwork could consist of a stand-alone piece, or an
artistic upgrade to an element of the structure’s architecture such as custom handrails,
tile, signage, etc. or a combination of these.
Electric Vehicles: Charging connections for electric vehicles would be included on at
least one floor of each garage. Conduit for wiring additional future charging stations
would be provided throughout both structures with the connections installed as the
need for additional stations increases. The design and construction costs for the
connections would be paid by the Utilities Department and not financed by the
parking assessment district.
Planned Community Zoning Application: The proposed garages would not be
permitted under the provisions of the current PF zoning or Commercial Downtown-
Community (CD-C) zoning, because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the garages
exceeds the PF and CD-C limits of 1:1. The proposed PC zoning permits increase in
the minimum FAR and reduction in the setbacks. If the PC zoning is approved, the
resultant FAR for Lot S/L would be 2.92:1 with no minimum setback and 206,300
CMR:341:99 Page 5 of 21
square feet of garage area. The FAR for Lot R would be 3.1:1 with a setback on the
north side of the lot.
Draft Environmental Impact Report: The environmental assessment finds one area as
having "significant and unavoidable impacts." This is the temporary loss of
approximately 180 parking spaces during construction. Prior to the start of
c.onstruction, staff will develop a plan for parking during construction. This issue is
discussed in greater detail later in this report. :
Tentative Subdivision Map: In order to process the zoning change, a Tentative
Subdivision Map was required for each site to merge parcels. If an assessment district
is approved, a final map will be presented for approval.
BOARDS AND COMMISSION REVIEW
The application for parking structure design approval of the application for PC Zoning,
EIR and Tentative Subdivision Map was presented.to the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board during the period from January through July, 1999. The
project was also presented to the Historic Review Board (HRB) as an information item on
May 19, 1999.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the parking garage projects at two separate meetings.
They completed a preliminary review on January 13, 1999, and final recommendations
were completed on July 28, 1999.
At its January 13, 1999 meeting, the Commission had several comments on the PC
application that related to the compatibility and architectural design of the structures.
Specifically:
[]The overall size and bulk of the parking structure is too large;
¯The location and amount of bicycle parking available is not adequate for the proposal;
[]The need to incorporate bathrooms;
[]The need to evaluate a "different look," e.g., structures designed such that the use is
more readily apparent;
The potential to include kiosks in the designs to provide information about
transportation alternatives; and
[] Support for the inclusion of non-parking uses in the design of the structure proposed
for Lot S~L.
[]Compatibility with surrounding structures, specifically the potential impact of the
proposed structure on the view of the Victorian style office building located at 420
Florence Avenue;
CMR:341:99 Page 6 of 21
See Attachment D for verbatim minutes of January 13, 1999.
At its second meeting on July 28, 1999, the Commission had additional comments on the
proposed design of the parking structures. In summary, the general consensus was that
the scale, mass, and bulk of the structures were too large. There was a concern that the
proposed structures would be one of the largest buildings in downtown. To address this
concern it was suggested that a minimum of one floor should be removed. The
Commission believed the design of both parking structures needed to address the
fundamental issue of building size and context. The Commissioners commented that the
buildings are not responsive to the established surrounding buildings, and due to their size
and design, do not fit in with the character of downtown. It suggested that the buildings
need to address the human scale and engage pedestrians on the street level. They
concluded that the designs should take a different approach and become "background"
buildings.
The following actions were taken on the parking structures at Lots S/L and R on July 28,
1999:
Recommendation #1: Denial of Scheme ’B’ architectural design (4-0-0-3) Schink,
Byrd and Beecham not participating). The Commission did not support the design
based upon the reasons stated above.
Recommendation #2: Two motions were put forth by the Planning Commission
regarding approva! of the Planned Community. (PC) zone: one motion to approve and
one motion to deny. Both motions failed on a 2-2 vote (2-2-0-3, Commissioners
Schink, Byrd and Beecham not participating).
Recommendation #3: Approved the waiver of required parking in-lieu fee for new
square footage of the proposed Teen Center for parking structure on Lots S/L (4-0-0-
3, Schink, Byrd, Beecham not participating).
Recommendation #4: Approved staff recommendation on the Tentative Subdivision
Map with modifications to the text of the draft findings (4-0-0-3, Schink, Beecham
and Bvrd not participating).
Recommendation #5: Conditionally approved the staff recommendation finding that
the DEIR was adequate and recommended that the City Council find that the DEIR
has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the project and related mitigation
measures. As part of its approval, the Commission suggested staff include
Comprehensive Plan Policies T-3 (reduction in auto use), L-5 (maintaining the scale
and character and avoiding land uses that are unacceptable due to the size and scale),
and Programs T-49 (implementation of a supply and demand management strategy for
downtown), and T-46 (minimizing the need for all-day employee parking in the
University Avenue district. (4-0-0-3, Schink, Beecham and Byrd not participating).
CMR:341:99 Page 7 of 2!
Recommendation #6: Approved staff recommendation relative to overriding
considerations with the following wording change (underlining denotes additions)
"That the City Council make a statement of overriding consideration for one finding
of significance and potential unavoidable short term impact, that is temporary loss of
parking" 4-0-0-3, Schink, Byrd, Beecham absent)
Please refer to Attachment D for the verbatim minutes of the July 28, 1999 meeting.
Architectural Review Board
The ARB reviewed the parking garage project at two meetings. The first meeting was
held on March 11, 1999 and the second meeting was held on May 20, 1999.
At its first meeting on March 11, 1999, the ARB reviewed and commented on
"Scheme B," the "building style" design presented by staff. The Board recommended
continuance of the project to allow for further redesign of the architectural elements,
which include the following items:
445 Bryant (Lots S/L)
Restudy the relationship of the building to the coruer of Lytton Avenue and Bryant
Street with respect to retail space or no retail space, with a preference for no retail
space;
Restudy the relationship of the structure along Florence Street to the .Victorian
building;
Consideration should be given to the possibility of setting-back the upper story, if
workable;
Strong conside’ration should be given to lowering the building to provide one
additional level of underground parking;
Restudy the architectural character of the building skin in terms of materials, relief,
and character, how the windows relate to one another and to the overall building,, and
to the other openings, especially with regard to proportion;
Maximize the quality of the pedestrian experience along Bryant Street, Lytton Avenue
and Florence Street;
Encourage any other pedestrian level uses besides the retail space, including benches,
seating areas etc.
¯Downscale the elevator and stair tower as much as possible;
¯Incorporate as much landscaping as possible on the building itself as wel! as in the
ground around the building to mitigate mass of the building; and
Be more inventive regarding the relationship of the lower portion to the upper portion
of the building.
528 High Street (Lot R)
¯ Consider sunlight issues on the plaza;
CMR:341:99 Page 8 of 21
Reconsider the upper story massing, to determine whether it can be pulled back away
from the plaza to give it some degree of visual relief;
Reconsider the provision of underground parking for two levels;
Consider reversing the location of the entrance ramps on High Street;
Reconsider the architectural character of the building in terms of the arch forms and
materials; and
The building should have an abstract character and less of a recall to a particular
architectural period.
See Attachment D for verbatim minutes of the March 11, 1999, meeting.
The ARB, at its meeting on May 20, 1999, reviewed "Scheme C," which was created
from modifications to "Scheme B" requested by the ARB at its March 11, 1999 meeting.
The proposed modifications included the following:
445 Bryant (Lots S/L)
The elevator and stair tower had been redesigned to significantly reduce bulk and
height at the property, line. The building walls were stepped back and the roof had
been lowered. The roof above the elevators had been sculpted to reduce the cornice
height:
,The height of the retail space at the comer of Bryant Street and Ls~ton Avenue had
been reduced to two stories instead of three. This change affected about 150 feet of
street frontage, which is 30% of the project’s total frontage; and
The window and cornice treatment had been revised at the upper level facade.
528 High Street (Lot R)
The elevator tower was relocated away from the comer of the building. This allows a
lower building height at the comer where the plaza is entered and sets back the
elevator shaft from the street;
The building comer is concaved at the plaza entrance to reduce the mass of the
building at the street and widens the entry to the plaza. The entry to the garage is
more clearly defined and the space created provides an opportunity for a public
feature such as amvork or special landscaping;
,The size of openings in the wall has been increased by maintaining a ten foot
separation to the adjacent building; and
Installation of ground level planters that are placed below shear walls along the plaza
will allow vines to grow on the building.
In general, the ARB did not support the redesign. The Board perceived a direct conflict
with the program requirements and the design of a parking garage. In particular, they
",’,’ere concerned with the building’s mass, scale, and height in relationship to
neighborhood context. The Board made a motion to forward the application to the
CMR:341:99 Page 9 of 21
Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial on both design Schemes B and
C. This motion passed (2-1-2-0) Piha and Alfonso voted yes, and Peterson voted no.
Board members Bellomo and Lippert stepped down because of conflicts of interest. The
original recommendation in favor of certification of the Final EIR and approval of the PC
Zone Change remained unchanged from its March 11, 1999 ARB meeting.
See Attachment D for verbatim minutes of the May.20, 1999 meeting.
Historic Resources Board
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) requested the opportunity to review the proposal.
On May 19, 1999, the HRB reviewed "Scheme C" as an informational only item with no
action required. The following comments were made:
Suggested a reduction in the above-grade height of the Lot SiL parking structure to
four stories from the currently proposed five stories, so that it relates better visually to
the historic structure across the street;
Noted that the size of the Lot S/L parking structure will dominate the surrounding
historic properties, which includes a building on the National Historic Register (450
Bryant) and is out of context with the surrounding area;
Lighting should be carefully studied and should not produce glare at the street level;
Suggested that the facade be made simpler and concentrate on the quality and the
colors of the materials; and
Suggested that alternative transportation, including public transit to downtown Palo
Alto, will help alleviate parking problems. The parking deficit should not be the
driving force in urban design.
ISSUES FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION
There are four issues requiring Council direction.
subsequently:
These are listed below and discussed
2.
3.
4.
Exterior Appearance of Structures
Height of Structures
Use of Non-Parking Area at Bryant/Lytton
Public Restrooms
Issue 1: Exterior Appearance of Structures
During the project’s feasibility study phase in 1997, several design "concepts" were
presented to Council ("Scheme A"). Council approved the general concept of designing
the garages to look like buildings, as opposed to having them look like parking garages.
The effect of this direction resulted in Scheme B as shown on Attachment C, which was
first presented to the ARB on March 11, 1999. At the March 11 meeting, the ARB
requested that the architectural exterior of the building be reconsidered. The ARB felt
CMR:341:99 Page 10 of 21
that buildings should reflect their use, i.e., a parking structure should not look like an
office building. The intent of the ARB was that this new design concept would have the
effect of reducing the building’s mass, since some of the exterior facade would be
removed. Staff revised the design and the result, Scheme C, is shown on Attachment C.
In order to proceed further with the design, direction is needed from Council as to
whether to continue the "building" style design .(Scheme B), or to follow the ARB
recommendation of the "parking structure" design (Scheme C). Scheme B blends in more
with the context of the surrounding buildings, is consistent with prior Council direction,
and will appear as a building. The Scheme B proposal could be identified as a parking
garage by signage and other visual cues. Scheme C has the advantage of costing
somewhat less and allows the structure to be more identifiable. The location of the public
garage would also be more apparent to drivers, even without the use of signage.
Alternatives:
Council may want to pick a combination of styles, e.g., a "building" style for Lot S/L and
a "parking garage" style at Lot R. If these styles build upon the Scheme B or C designs
that have already been developed and presented to the ARB and Planning Commission,
no additional design funding would be required. Alternatively, Council may decide that it
is appropriate to investigate another exterior style. A third design option would require
additional funding and would add approximately six months to the time required to reach
the assessment district elections. If this alternative is desired, staff would return at a later
date with a BAO for additional design and contract engineer funding.
If Council wishes to proceed with this alternative, staff recommends that Council direct
the Planning Commission, ARB, and HRB to select a representative to work with staff,
architects from Watry Design Group, and property owner representatives to develop a
suitable exterior design. The resulting design would then be presented to the ARB, HRB
and Planning Commission in November/December 1999 and to Council in December
1999. An option available to assist the subcommittee could include an outside
architectural firm to assist in developing the exterior design of the structures. This firm
could be retained by Watry Design Group and work in partnership with Watry engineers
and architects. The fee for any outside architectural firm would require funding through a
future BAO.
Issue 2." Height of Structures
The Planning Commission and ARB members felt that the structures were too large and
the mass/scale/bulk of the structures should be reduced. Removing one level from the top
of each of the structures and replacing it with an additional undergound level was
discussed at both the Planning Commission and ARB meetings.
The number of levels for both structures had been discussed during preliminary reviews
with the Planning Commission on July 10, 1996 and with the ARB on July 18, 1996. The
CMR:34! :99 Page 1 lof21
above-grade levels for Lot S/L have not changed since that time. At Lot R, one additional
level above what had been presented in the 1997 Downtown Parking Structures
Feasibility Study is currently proposed in order to compensate for the 29 stalls lost in
providing an alleyway and landscaped area at the north end of the site (CMR:355:98).
This fifth level on Lot R adds fourteen feet to the building height, and is consistent with
existing tall structures in the Alma Street corridor.
The five-level desi~o-n offers many significant ad’vantages: . it allows pedestrian access
between Alma and High Streets and subsequent access to public transit (Cal Train); it
allows direct access from the parking garage to the businesses at the north end of the site;
it provides a landscaped public area; it allows the walls of the garage to be open to air and
sunlight; it eliminates the need for a solid concrete firewall, thereby reducing costs for
artificial ventilation and lighting; and it removes most of the interior columns, resulting in
less potential damage to vehicles.
No basement was proposed for Lot R. The small size of the lot, when combined with the
amount of space required for the construction of a basement ramp, as well as foundation
issues related to an existing building at the south end of the lot, makes the cost
prohibitive. One underground parking level was proposed for Lot S/L in 1996, but staff
was directed by Council to add another basement level to maximize parking.
Underground parking is more expensive than aboveground parking due to additional
excavation, shoring, and the need to pump excess groundwater during construction as
well as a thicker basement floor slab. The slab for a third underground floor would be
below the water table, and would have to be thick enough to withstand the increase in
water pressure, as the Palo Alto Municipal Code does not allow pumping of groundwater
for more than two underground levels, due to concerns about water quality. In addition to
the increased cost, replacing an above-grade floor with a basement level would result in a
loss of parking stalls and increase the cost per added-stall. As currently proposed, the
garages already provide 36 fewer spaces than the levels estimated in the 1997 Downtown
Parking Structure Feasibility Study, due to space requirements for elevators, aesthetic
considerations, and other design factors. Costs for some of the floor/basement scenarios
presented to the Planning Commission and ARB are identified in Attachment E.
The draft 1993 "City of Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design Guide" encourages 3-4 story
buildings along Alma Street. The Lot R garage would be four floors (5 parking levels)
and although taller than the existing adjacent structures, it would be consistent with recent
approvals for taller buildings along the same corridor. In addition, given market trends,
neighboring properties will likely be improved with substantially taller structures as
permitted per the zoning requirements. Replacing the top level of the Lot R structure
with a basement level would result in the loss of 6 spaces and increase the project cost by
34 percent. In staff’s opinion, adding a basement level is cost prohibitive and is not a
feasible option. Providing room for a ramp to the basement would also require the loss of
CMR:341:99 Page 12 of 21
bicycle and storage areas on the ground floor. In order to keep the bicycle/storage areas,
another 5 to 7 parking spaces would be lost.
Alternatives."
Four Level Design: The 1997 Feasibility Study design was for 4 levels at Lot R. The
fifth level was added in order to recover the parking spaces lost by pulling the
structure away from the property line, and to keep the number of stalls similar to the
approximate level approved in the Feasibility Study. The design and cost revisions
were reviewed by the Parking Study Group (which is comprised of staff, business and
property owners, ARB, Public Art Commission, and neighborhood representatives)
and recommended for inclusion in the DEIR as the proper design for Lot R.
However, the design could revert to the 4-level option presented in the 1997
Feasibility Study. This alternative would require construction to the property lines,
elimination of the park and alleyway at the north end of the site, and would require
solid concrete firewalls and mechanical ventilation.
Reduce Height By Removing One Level or Adding Additional Below Ground Level:
The height of one or both of the structures could be reduced by either removing one
exterior level, adding additional basement levels or both. Additional funding would be
required in order to redesign the structures, if it is desired to remove above-grade
levels and/or add basement levels. This work is not included in the current design fee,
and would need to be financed by a future BAO from the General Fund.
Further Stud?’ ’ If Council wishes to pursue the idea of whether the size of either of
the proposed structures is appropriate, a massing model or video imaging could be
developed. The cost for either the model or video is approximately $20,000 for both
sites.
Issue 3." Use of Non-Parking Area at Bryant/Lytton
An area of Lot L along the corners of B~ant/Lytton is not suitable for parking, due to
size and shape limitations and entrance and egress requirements. The unusable space is
shaped like an L, which presents opportunities for turning that space into some other
desirable use. The unusable space for parking totals approximately 4,500 gross square
feet (gsf). A design of up to 3-levels (13,560 gsf) was included in the zoning application
package that was presented to the Planning Commission and ARB in order to preserve
options for Council to consider for potentially building out.
Since the City (via the assessment district) already owns the land, the cost of constructing
at this site is relatively inexpensive, especially when compared to purchasing land and
building at another site or renting a similar building. For example, as discussed in greater
detail below, it would cost approximately $675,000 to build out a 4,500 gross square foot
CMR:341:99 Page 13 of 21
Teen Center in the space of the proposed parking structure that is unusable for parking
spaces. That works out to about $1.00 per square foot per month over 25 years in bonded
debt service costs to construct a Teen Center. It would cost about $1.67 per square foot to
develop office space for City use. (The reason for the higher cost for office space is that
there would be an in-lieu parking fee required on that space).
Staff has conferred with the City’s financial advisor, Stone and Youngberg, as well as
bond counsel, Jones Hall. It is possible to build Out the unusable space for some City
need, such as a Teen Center, as long as the costs for the build out are paid for by the City,
and not by the assessment district. It is estimated that it would cost $150 per square foot
todevelop this area ($675,000 per floor). Separating buildout costs would be relatively
straightforward, so this would not present a financing problem. Buitdout of a parking
structure space has been done in other downtown areas, among them Oakland (Yoshi’s
Jazz Club and Restaurant at Jack London Square) and San Jose (the Camera Cinemas).
Five potential options for building out the unusable parking area are discussed below.
They are: development of a small open area that could serve as a mini-park, construction
of a Teen Center, development of office space for City use, development of office space
for private use, and development of retail space.
Teen Center: The existing Teen Center building on Bryant Street is located on a
parcel owned by the Gas Utility Fund (see Issue 3 above). It will have to be taken
down as part of the garage construction. The existing Teen Center is 2,175 gross
square feet. A space-needs analysis by Watry Design Group, dated July 30, 1998,
identifies 5,415 square feet (SF) as adequate square footage for future Teen Center
programs including classrooms, multipurpose rooms, offices, game and coffee areas,
etc.
Preliminary discussions with Community Services Department staff indicates that
they believe the parking structure site and square footage would be very. viable for a
Teen Center. A downtmvn location would be valuable for City teens. The traffic and
parking impacts from a Teen Center would be much smaller than any other use, as the
Teen Center would be used only part-time.
If the Council wished to construct a Teen Center as part of the parking structure, the
costs could be paid for through the sale of tax exempt bonds at the time the City sold
assessment district bonds. Annual debt service would cost about $55,000 for a one
floor Teen Center of 4,500 square feet, including bond issuance costs. This cost
(about $1.00 per square foot per month) is very reasonable for downtown, where rents
are typically in the $3.00-$4.50 per square foot per month range.
Teen Center staff has requested that they have ground-level frontage for greater
visibility. Since the ground floor is also the most valuable for commercial leasing, the
CMR:341:99 Page 14 of 21
Teen Center could be provided with a space that spans both the ground floor and
second floor. Based on the site’s configuration, this could be roughly 2,500 SF on the
ground floor, and 1,500 SF of conference rooms and staff workspace on the upper
level. Staff recommends that Council direct the design of a two-level structure at this
comer.
Development of Open Area/Mini-Park: This option is certainly possible, but staff.
believes it is the least desirable of all options below. There is already a larger park
area directly across the street at Cogswell Plaza that is not fully utilized by downtown
workers and visitors. In addition, one of the foremost benefits of developing space is
that it could be done in such a way as to mitigate some of the negative public safety
problems inherent in a large urban parking structure, i.e., generating pedestrian traffic.
A mini-park area would probably exacerbate rather than solve some of the problems
people have expressed as to feeling unsafe as they park their cars at night, and then
exiting a parking structure into an area with little pedestrian activity. As evidenced by
Cogswell Plaza, an open area would likely not generate foot-traffic into the
Lytton!Bryant area. A mini-park would also not provide the "stepping-down" visual
effect that serves to reduce the garage’s massing.
City Office Use: Given the shortage of space at the Civic Center, some portion of this
buildout could also be considered for City needs, such as office space for the
Downtown Commute Coordinator, and!or public conference facilities. After Teen
Center usage, usage for City space that would otherwise have to be rented elsewhere
is the most economical option from a strictly financial standpoint. While each floor
developed at this comer would require a contribution to the In-Lieu Parking Fee
requirement, the total cost of building out this comer would still be far less than the
cost of renting space in Palo Alto. Each additional floor for City use, for example,
would cost about $90,000 per year to finance through bonded debt service. This
works out to about $1.67 per square foot per month, so building out additional floors
would be economical, if there were City uses to be identified that would other~vise
have to be rented elsewhere.
Private Office Use/Retail: After consultation with the development and real estate
community, it appears that the greatest demand for private use of this space would be
for office or professional use rather than retail. Although this use would have an
impact on the parking demand at the new garage, it would be less than the amount of
parking that would be required for retail use.
The inclusion of a retail element on the ground floor would add activity to the comer,
which would help to enhance pedestrian safety in the evenings. Retail space would,
however, attract vehicle trips and this increased demand for parking by both
employees and customers would counteract some of the benefit of building a new"
CMR:341:99 Page 15 of 21
garage. The demand for retail space in this area of downtown is not particularly
strong, as the Lytton Avenue area tends to be used primarily for office/professional
use.
While the actual market for built out office and/or retail space is not "known, if the
Council wished staffto consider either of these options for a second and/or third floor
for private use, staff could issue a Request for Quotations (RFQ). The RFQ would
seek bids to cover a medium to long time period (5-15 years), for the right to sublet
the space for office and/or retail. Such an arrangement would free the City from
acting as a landlord on a regular basis. If the cost of bids came back at over $1.95 per
square foot, then the additional buildout could be built at no net cost to the City.
($1.95 per square foot would be the cost of building out space financed through
taxable bonds).
Third Level: The DEIR provides for up to three floors of commercial use at this
comer. If Council desires a third level, it is recommended that the additional floor be
used for staff or services currently housed at the Civic Center, so as not to increase the
parking demand downtown. While a three-floor alternative would be aesthetically
appropriate, it would have less of a stepping-down effect on the mass of the adjoining
parking garage than a two-floor use would have.
Issue 4. Public Restrooms
Council directed staff to provide for public restrooms at each of the new garages. A
separate built-in restroom (BIR) could be provided near the front of each structure. The
BIR would be sized to accommodate one person (of either gender) at a time, and would
need to be durable (stainless steel) and easily cleaned. The construction cost for one BIR
is estimated at $60,000, or $120,000 for both parking structures. The annual cost for
repairs for two BIRs is estimated at $6,000. Annual operating costs for BIRs, which
includes supplies, materials, transportation, insurance, and supervision is billed at $50 per
hour. The annual cleaning costs for BIRs are more expensive than Automatic Pay Toilets
(APTs) when compared to the frequency of cleaning provided (CMR:106:99). It is,
therefore, recommended that any restroom facilities at the garages be APTs instead of
BIRs.
Two APTs have been approved for installation downtown - one at Waverly Street and
Hamilton Avenue, and the other near University’ Avenue at Emerson Street. The current
ageement with JCDecaux allows for a price discount from $61,500 to $60,000 per unit
per year, if two additional units are installed within four years of the contract date. This
would save $280,399 (including inflation increases) over the life of a four to 20-year
lease. Given the high APT lease cost, it is recommended that an area for APTs be set
aside at each structure, and that the need for two additional units downtown be re-
assessed prior to the expiration date of JCDecaux’s multi-unit rental rate. If a third or
fourth APT is needed, they could be installed during construction of the parking
CMR:341:99 Page 16 of 21
structures. If additional APTs were not installed, the land that would have been set aside
for the potential APTs would instead become part of the landscaped area.
Alternatives: Built-in facilities could be installed at one or both of the structures. At
Lot R, this area could be at the north-east corner of the lot: approximately where space
has already been set aside for a potential APT. Due to space constraints, a built-in
restroom at Lot S/L would likely need to be located in the plaza area fronting Bryant
Street. The area for a potential APT for Lot S/L is Currently Shown at the northeast end of
the lot, near Florence Street. Alternatively, a third and/or fourth APT could be installed at
the structure(s).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The current estimated cost of design and construction (in Year 2000 dollars) for the
parking structure at Lots S/L is $16.3 million and $5.3 million for the parking structure at
Lot R (CMR:308:97). These estimates were based upon conceptual Feasibility Study
designs, which used the (then current) 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). A new
version of the UBC has recently been adopted, which contains more seismic requirements
for structural stability than the previous version. These additional design considerations
will result in an increase in the construction cost in the range of 10 to 15 percent.
Construction costs have not been updated since the 1997 Downtown Parking Structure
Feasibility. Study, however, pending clarification of design issues discussed earlier.
The attached BAO requests funds not to exceed $70,000 from the General Fund Budget
Stabilization Reserve. This request is a one-time expense and there are no future year
resource needs anticipated as a result of this BAO. Attachment B summarizes the BAOs
approved to date in 1999-00 that impact the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
This attachment also estimates future year ongoing costs associated with BAOs approved
to date to provide a projection for the future resource need from the General Fund for
those progams approved after the adoption of the 1999-00 Budget. The BAO would
reimburse the design budget of CIP 19530 (Downtown Parking Structures) for the
following items"
Tentative Subdivision Map: The original design budget included monies for
development of a Parcel Map, which was to be used as part of the Zone Change
application. During development of the design, however, 8 underlying property lines
were identified on Lot R and 20 on Lot SFL. These property lines had been in place
since the parking assessment district acquired the property. In oi’der to process the
Zone Change application, title to the properties had to be researched, discrepancies
resolved and the property lines consolidated into one parcel by means of a Tentative
Subdivision Map, which has resulted in a $23,000 increase in design costs.
CMR:341:99 Page 17 of 21
Environmental Impact Report: This project had originally been budgeted to include
the cost of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. During the preparation of this
document, however, it became evident that at least one potential impact could not be
mitigated to be less than significant. Therefore, an EIR was determined to be
required, .which covered traffic and other impacts in more detail. The $17,000
requested for the EIR includes funding for this more detailed assessment.
Lot R Foundation Design: During underground site investigations, it was discovered
that the foundation of the building at the south end of the site encroached slightly
under City.’ right-of-way the entire length of Lot R. which is not uncommon for older
downtown buildings. In order to avoid impacting this existing foundation, additional
subgrade explorations were conducted and the design of the garage’s foundation was
modified accordingly. The $45,000 requested is to further assess this issue.
Funding for the EIR, title reports, and issues related to the foundation at Lot R, were
advanced through the design budget. If Council does not fund the BAO, the design
budget will only accommodate design up to the 40 percent completion stage, rather than
the 50 percent level previously set as a goal by Council. The assessment district cost
spread is based upon the construction cost estimate, and the more design information that
is available, the more accurate the estimate is likely to be. Staff considers this to be
important, given the volatility of construction costs in today’s economy.
In order to reduce the amount of additional funding needed for the above items, it is
possible to reduce the fee amount for contract C8103688 with Turner Construction
Company. Turner is providing contract engineer services to supplement existing staff
during the project. It is possible to shift $15,000 of this work back to staff by means of a
deductive Contract Change Order, which can be authorized by the Director of Public
Works.
On a parallel track to the design work for the par’king structures, a contract for Council
approval is included as an agenda item on the August 9 Consent Calendar for services
related to assessment engineering, assessment soNvare development, downtown property
owner project outreach, and Proposition 218 mail balloting services.
Funds requested in the attached BAO:
Title Reports & Subdivision Map
Environmental Impact Report
Foundation Design & Legal Issues
Subtotal:
$ 23,000
$ 17,000
$ 45,000
$ 85,000
Deductive Change Order - Turner Construction
Total BAO requested:
$(15,000)
$ 70,000
CMR:341:99 Page 18 of 21
Approved or Pending Project Funding:
Design Services - Watry Design Group
Contract Engineer Services - Turner Construction
Contract Planner Services
Operating expenses (copying, postage, etc.)
Assessment Engineer (pending approval 8/9/99)
Subtotal:
$ 716,236
$175,812
$ 45,000
$ 5,000
$ 72,400
$1,014,448
Total Financing Requested or Approved to Date: $1,084,448
The City has advanced funding for the current design effort to the 50 percent design
completion stage. The Parking In-Lieu Fund was used to finance part of the design
sern, ices (approximately $798,000), and the remainder of the initial $942,048 fee came
from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. If an assessment district is not
formed, the Parking In-Lieu Fund account will need to be reimbursed by the General
Fund. If a new assessment district is eventually formed, proceeds from the future bond
sale can be used to reimburse monies advanced from General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve, and all future costs for design completion would be borne by the downtown
property owners via the newly created assessment district.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Construction of the parking structures is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan
policies:
T-45: "Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and
California Business Districts to address long-range needs"
[] T-47: "Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business
districts"
[] L-9 and L-23 (commercial space at Lot S/L), "Enhance the desirable
characteristics in mixed-use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create
opportunities for mixed-use development" and "maintain University Avenue ...
and reinforce pedestrian character."
TIMELINE
The 50 percent plans could be completed in early 2000, assuming no significant re-design
is required. Upon Council approval of the 50 percent design plans, a proceeding to form
the assessment district could be held in late winter or early spring of 2000. If the
formation of an assessment district is approved, construction could begin in late 2000. It
may be advisable to delay groundbreaking until the spring of 2001, hoxvever, in order to
avoid construction during the holiday season and winter rains.
CMR:341:99 Page 19 of 21
It is estimated that it will take one year to substantially complete the garage at Lot R, and
1.5 years to complete the Lot S/L structure. The garages could be built simultaneously or
sequentially, and there are advantages and disadvantages to either scenario:
Simultaneous construction:
Construction of approximately 700 new parking spaces would be completed in 1.5
years instead of 2.5 years
Potential construction cost savings as a result of a larger project
Significant staff workload, which could impact completion of other CIP projects
Sequential construction:
Less noise and traffic disruption due to construction
Easier to provide alternative temporary Parking for either 71 or 109 displaced spaces
than for the 180 spaces that would be needed in simultaneous construction
Staff will discuss this issue with the Parking Study Group and Chamber of Commerce and
will return to Council with a sequencing recommendation prior to construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A DEIR was prepared as part of the PC zoning application and was presented to the
Planning Commission and ARB. These boards reviewed the document, which is being
finalized and will be presented later to Council for certification. The one significant and
unavoidable impact reported in the DEIR concerns the loss of parking spaces during
construction of the structures.
If the structures were to be built simultaneously, the result would be a short-term los~ of
approximately 180 parking stalls (71 from Lot R, 109 from Lot S/L) in the downtown
area for a period of approximately two years. During the construction of Lot R, 71
existing parking spaces (37 permit, 34 public) would be lost, and 109 public spaces
removed at Lot S/L. The contractor will also require parking areas for employees,
subcontractors, equipment and material. Due to the shortage of parking in the downtown
area, it may not be possible to replace all of the spaces lost during construction. As a
result, the DEIR lists this issue as a "significant unavoidable impact."
A separate committee, consisting of a Chamber of Commerce representative, merchants
and staff, has identified several potential areas that might be available for parking during
the construction period. Attendant parking and shuttles are also being considered. While
several of the owners of nearby private lots belieye they would be interested in leasing
their sites for short-term construction parking, it is too early in the design process to
obtain firm commitments. The cost of leasing any private property, would likely be borne
bv the assessment district. Staff will return with a plan for interim construction parking
prior to construction.
CMR:341:99.Page 20 of 21
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment B: Summary of BAOs impacting the General Fund approved to date in FY
1999-00
Attachment C: Garage designs showing "Building Style" (Scheme B) design and "Garage
Style" (Scheme C)
Attachment D: Planning Commission and ARB me~ting minutes
Attachment E: Basement construction costs for various design scenarios
PREPARED BY: Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer, Public Works
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
GAWF
Director of Planning and
C(
City Manager
Parking Study Group
Susan Frank
Jim Baer
Roxy Rapp
CMR:341:99 Page 21 of 21
12
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
TO:
SUBJECT:
August 5, 1999
City. Council
DIRECTION ON DESIGN APPEARANCE AND MASSING FOR
PARKING STRUCTURES; APPROVAL OF BUILDOUT OF LOT S/L, FOR
A TEEN CENTER AND OFFICE SPACE; AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 FOR
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CAPITAL
PROJECT NUMBER 19530
Copies of the attachments to the subject-referenced staff report, CMR:341:99, may be viewed
at the Public Works Engineering counter located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, or at
the Main Library at 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto.
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
’J.~ FLEMtN0
;’~llty Manager ’~)-~